MHISSTC Posted August 11, 2011 Author Share Posted August 11, 2011 What was the topic again..... ? great discussion though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmc79 Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 I don't consider that class a success. You seem to. As I said, 5.2 car per class does not eqaul success to me. HC is also only big on the west coast if I recall. 23 cars in CMC at the 2006 Nats is a success. For 2012, I hope we can equal that. Not a success? 26 drivers this year at Nat's. And you point out CMC's greatest number was 23... five years ago. I see only two drivers (of 26) from CA signed up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmc79 Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Would ST or GTS be a better example? 38 ST/SU drivers at Nat's in three classes. 62 GTS drivers in six classes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 I don't consider that class a success. You seem to. As I said, 5.2 car per class does not eqaul success to me. HC is also only big on the west coast if I recall. 23 cars in CMC at the 2006 Nats is a success. For 2012, I hope we can equal that. Not a success? 26 drivers this year at Nat's. And you point out CMC's greatest number was 23... five years ago. I see only two drivers (of 26) from CA signed up. The HC 26 were/are spread across 5 HC classes. The CMC 23 of 2006 were in 1 class. That is a big difference. I didn't realize HC was so populare in other regions. I havebeen corrected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Would ST or GTS be a better example?38 ST/SU drivers at Nat's in three classes. 62 GTS drivers in six classes. Sounds good to me. Thats is double the number per class than the HC one you presented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboShortBus Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Depends on where you get your info from. The 4.6 PI motors were already 9.5-9.7:1 and the head swap takes them to 10.25-10.5:1 from the info I've seen on the net. Given the following from Sean Hyland's book: 3.540" stroke 3.551" cylinder bore 0.036" compressed head gasket thickness 3.620" head gasket bore diameter 0.008" deck clearance 51 cc 1992-1998 2V heads 42 cc 1999-2004 2V PI heads 52 cc 1993-2004 4V heads 11 cc 1992-1998 2V piston dish 17 cc 1999-2004 2V PI piston dish 3 cc 1993-2004 4V piston dish (may not be accurate) And using this calculator: http://www.csgnetwork.com/compcalc.html The compression ratio calculations for Ford 4.6L engines are: 1992-1998 2V, stock (11 cc dish, 51 cc) = 9.28 1999-2004 2V PI, stock (17 cc dish, 42 cc) = 9.66 1993-up 4V, stock (3 cc dish, 52 cc) = 10.21 (does not agree with 9.85 CR listed in specs) 1992-1998 2V bottom end (11 cc dish) + 1999-2004 2V PI heads (42 cc) = 10.52 1999-2004 2V bottom end (17 cc dish) + 1992-1998 2V heads (51 cc) = 8.62 1993-up 4V bottom end (3 cc dish) + 1992-1998 2V heads (51 cc) = 10.36 1993-up 4V bottom end (3 cc dish) + 1999-2004 2V PI heads (42 cc) = 11.97 But, recalculating per different numbers found at Sullivan Performance's website gives you: 1992-1998 2V, stock (10.49 cc dish, 52 cc) = 9.22 1999-2004 2V PI, stock (18.10 cc dish, 44 cc) = 9.26 1993-1998 4V, stock (2.66 cc dish, no chamber volume listed) = ? 1999-2002 4V, stock (4.54 cc dish, no chamber volume listed) = ? 1992-1998 2V bottom end (10.49 cc dish) + 1999-2004 2V PI heads (44 cc) = 10.28 1999-2004 2V bottom end (18.10 cc dish) + 1992-1998 2V heads (52 cc) = 8.41 1993-1998 4V bottom end (2.66 cc dish) + 1992-1998 2V heads (52 cc) = 10.26 1993-1998 4V bottom end (2.66 cc dish) + 1999-2004 2V PI heads (44 cc) = 11.63 1999-2001 4V bottom end (4.54 cc dish) + 1992-1998 2V heads (52 cc) = 9.98 1999-2001 4V bottom end (4.54 cc dish) + 1999-2004 2V PI heads (44 cc) = 11.27 So, these numbers can be all over the place, depending on whose information you use. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Depends on where you get your info from. The 4.6 PI motors were already 9.5-9.7:1 and the head swap takes them to 10.25-10.5:1 from the info I've seen on the net. Given the following from Sean Hyland's book: 3.540" stroke 3.551" cylinder bore 0.036" compressed head gasket thickness 3.620" head gasket bore diameter 0.008" deck clearance 51 cc 1992-1998 2V heads 42 cc 1999-2004 2V PI heads 52 cc 1993-2004 4V heads 11 cc 1992-1998 2V piston dish 17 cc 1999-2004 2V PI piston dish 3 cc 1993-2004 4V piston dish (may not be accurate) And using this calculator: http://www.csgnetwork.com/compcalc.html The compression ratio calculations for Ford 4.6L engines are: 1992-1998 2V, stock (11 cc dish, 51 cc) = 9.28 1999-2004 2V PI, stock (17 cc dish, 42 cc) = 9.66 1993-up 4V, stock (3 cc dish, 52 cc) = 10.21 (does not agree with 9.85 CR listed in specs) 1992-1998 2V bottom end (11 cc dish) + 1999-2004 2V PI heads (42 cc) = 10.52 1999-2004 2V bottom end (17 cc dish) + 1992-1998 2V heads (51 cc) = 8.62 1993-up 4V bottom end (3 cc dish) + 1992-1998 2V heads (51 cc) = 10.36 1993-up 4V bottom end (3 cc dish) + 1999-2004 2V PI heads (42 cc) = 11.97 But, recalculating per different numbers found at Sullivan Performance's website gives you: 1992-1998 2V, stock (10.49 cc dish, 52 cc) = 9.22 1999-2004 2V PI, stock (18.10 cc dish, 44 cc) = 9.26 1993-1998 4V, stock (2.66 cc dish, no chamber volume listed) = ? 1999-2002 4V, stock (4.54 cc dish, no chamber volume listed) = ? 1992-1998 2V bottom end (10.49 cc dish) + 1999-2004 2V PI heads (44 cc) = 10.28 1999-2004 2V bottom end (18.10 cc dish) + 1992-1998 2V heads (52 cc) = 8.41 1993-1998 4V bottom end (2.66 cc dish) + 1992-1998 2V heads (52 cc) = 10.26 1993-1998 4V bottom end (2.66 cc dish) + 1999-2004 2V PI heads (44 cc) = 11.63 1999-2001 4V bottom end (4.54 cc dish) + 1992-1998 2V heads (52 cc) = 9.98 1999-2001 4V bottom end (4.54 cc dish) + 1999-2004 2V PI heads (44 cc) = 11.27 So, these numbers can be all over the place, depending on whose information you use. Mark Very nice work! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.